Three Years After October 7, Israel Confronts Unresolved Failures and an Uncertain Political Future

Three years have passed since October 7, 2023, the deadliest single day in Israel's history, yet the country remains locked in a prolonged reckoning with the events of that day and their far-reaching consequences. A special edition of France 24's debate program, broadcast on the third anniversary of the Hamas-led attacks, examined whether Israel has fundamentally changed and what lies ahead for the Jewish state. The discussion brought together Shirli Sitbon, France 24's international affairs editor; Gil Mihaeli, editor-in-chief of Causeur; John Lyndon, executive director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace; and Sawsan Zaher, a Palestinian human rights lawyer.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, many commentators predicted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political career would quickly unravel. The security failures of that day, the worst intelligence and military breakdown in the country's history, seemed certain to bring down the right-wing leader who had long positioned himself as Israel's ultimate guardian. Yet three years later, Netanyahu remains in office, and he retains a realistic chance of winning re-election. That survival, according to the program's participants, reflects deep unresolved questions about accountability, the root causes of the attack, and the devastating war that followed.

The October 7 assault, led by Hamas, saw thousands of militants breach Israel's border with Gaza, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. The attack shattered longstanding assumptions about Israel's military deterrence and intelligence superiority. In the years since, the country has not fully reckoned with how such a catastrophic failure occurred, nor has it completed a comprehensive official inquiry into the decisions and systemic flaws that enabled it. That absence of accountability has become a central political fault line.

The war of vengeance that Israel launched in Gaza in response has drawn intense international scrutiny and, in some quarters, accusations of genocide, a term that the program noted causes many supporters of Israel to either react with fury or visibly recoil. The debate highlighted how certain words have become triggers in a polarized conversation, complicating efforts to discuss the conflict's toll and the path forward. According to the participants, the intensity of the language surrounding the war has made honest dialogue increasingly difficult, both within Israel and abroad.

At the heart of the debate over Israel's future is another contested term: Zionism. The movement that drove the founding of the state in 1948 has always carried multiple meanings, from a liberation project for a persecuted people to a colonial enterprise in the eyes of its critics. In the present moment, that dispute has sharpened considerably. The UK's Green Party, for instance, has gone so far as to equate Zionism with racism, a move that reflects how the concept has become a flashpoint in Western political discourse. The program asked what Zionism meant at Israel's founding and what it means today, and whether it can be reconciled with a durable peace settlement in the Middle East.

The conversation also examined Israel's electoral landscape. Even if Netanyahu is voted out in the general election scheduled for October 27, his most serious rivals do not advocate a radical departure when it comes to the Palestinians. That continuity suggests that any change of government may bring a shift in tone or style rather than a fundamental reorientation of policy. The competing visions within Israel remain constrained by security concerns, coalition politics, and a public that has moved rightward over the past two decades.

The anniversary itself was marked by memorials and commemorations. At the site of the Nova music festival near Reim in southern Israel, where hundreds of partygoers were killed or kidnapped during the attack, mourners gathered to honor the victims. A photograph from the event showed a woman embracing a sign at the memorial, a quiet image of grief that underscored the personal losses behind the geopolitical debates. Such ceremonies have become annual rituals of remembrance, even as the country struggles to define what the sacrifice of that day should mean for its future.

The debate's participants represented a range of perspectives, from Israeli journalists and peace advocates to a Palestinian human rights lawyer. That diversity reflected the program's effort to move beyond slogans and engage with the difficult questions that have divided communities. John Lyndon, who leads the Alliance for Middle East Peace, has long argued for grassroots coexistence efforts, while Sawsan Zaher's work focuses on the legal and human rights dimensions of the conflict. Their presence signaled an attempt to widen the frame beyond the immediate political drama in Jerusalem.

One theme that emerged was the gap between international perceptions and internal Israeli realities. Abroad, Israel is often discussed in stark terms, whether as a victim of terrorism or as an occupying power. Inside Israel, the conversation is more fragmented, shaped by trauma, fear, and competing narratives about responsibility. The failure to conduct a thorough national inquiry into October 7 has left a vacuum that political leaders have been content to fill with rhetoric rather than accountability. That vacuum, in turn, has made it easier for Netanyahu to frame the debate around security rather than his own record.

The program also touched on the broader regional context. The Hamas-led attack and the ensuing war have reshaped alliances, inflamed tensions across the Middle East, and complicated efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Arab states. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has become a moral and political burden for Israel's international partners, many of whom have grown increasingly critical of its military campaign. At the same time, Israel's adversaries, including Iran and its proxies, have sought to exploit the situation to advance their own agendas.

Looking ahead, the participants considered whether Israel can chart a different course. The question of Zionism's compatibility with a lasting peace was left open, but the discussion made clear that the answer depends on political choices yet to be made. The upcoming election offers voters a chance to render judgment, but the structural forces shaping Israeli policy extend well beyond any single ballot. Without a serious accounting of October 7 and a rethinking of the relationship with the Palestinians, the country risks remaining trapped in a cycle of crisis and reaction.

For now, as the program's title suggested, it remains Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel. The prime minister has weathered the storm that many expected would end his career, and he continues to command a loyal base. But the deeper questions raised by the anniversary, about security, leadership, and national identity, will not disappear after the votes are counted. They are the questions that define the future of the Jewish state, and they will demand answers long after the memorial candles have been extinguished.